Cont. If we would address climate change!? Then the way is with, cheaper than coal, MSR thorium! Or MSR nuclear waste burners, or some rational combination of both!

Given both cost far less than any other current energy source unless front-loaded with taxes that then cascade upwards to the end mug user! And as this stupidity personified occurs? Stymie all the massively increased productivity and monumental economic growth that would come with the above!

Cause the "geniuses" we trust with the decisions, have conflicting personal interests? Any other rational explanation to turn one back on power that costs less than a cent PKWH, escapes me! And in no way is it, we can't!

Just one of the spinoffs of MSR thorium is an annual multi-million dollar medical tourism, another is the production of ultra-cheap exportable hydrogen extracted from inexhaustible seawater! Another is the self-sufficient production of alternative fuels, also from seawater, that will also have a sizeable export market, given carbon neutrality! Even when we are fully electrified economy?

Our current debt burden tells us, we need to do all the above, if we would draw down our current debt level and rising, during this lifetime!
Alan B.

Foxy says "So there we have it - who to believe? Marine scientists
or others."
When the marine scientists get paid to declare the reef is in danger and would receive no more funds if the reef was just fine, then I would be skeptical about what they say. Additionally we can just use common sense. Do coral reefs grow in warm or cold temperatures? I suspect they prefer the warmth given they only exist in tropical and subtropical regions. Could a warmer world really be bad for coral reefs?

Remember the Great Barrier Reef Foundation being given a $444 million grant to help save the reef? At the time, it seemed an exercise in futility, given the the reef was said to be doomed due to "global warming".

Now the news is that the worst problems with the reef have been fixed.

Should we now ask for what remains of the grant money to be paid back to the taxpayer?

Rhys Jones,

This may help answer some of your questions regarding
coral reefs and temperatures:

http://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-briefs/coral-reefs-and-climate-change

Thank you, thank you, Graham Young.

For fifty years I have ben listening to the bleats of CSIRO "scientists" who endlessly resort to "reef alarmism" in order to get ever more public funds to expand their ideal lifestyle. First it was the Crown of Thorns which was going to destroy the reef unles millions were given to the "scientists" to stop it. Then came the spurious claim that silt from cane growing was going to destroy the reef. Lastly comes the rediculous claim that human induced global warming is going to put the last nail in the coffin.

Think about it. You have a select bunch of scientists living on remote islands on the barrier reef, or at least visiting these places for extended periods of time with everything, accommodation, food, boats, and fuel laid on by the taxpayer. Hopefully, the taxpayer does not also pay for the luau's and the female "researchers bikinis? What's the bet that any female undergrad invited to these idyllic locations had better be a size 6 and know that pleasing the professor might improve her examination score?

That is a lot of taxpayer funded La Dolca Vita to defend. No wonder Queensland University came down on Dr. Paul Ridd like a ton of bricks when he pointed out that the beach party was based upon spurious science. One wonders if the top leadership of QU were guests at the parties? At least Jeffrey Edelson did not ask the taxpayer to fund his and his cronies lifestyle.

It was probably the success of Australian "scientists" to scare monger the public into funding their idyllic lifestyle that gave the climate "scientists" the idea that they could do the same thing.

There are not many scientists with the integrity scientists are claimed to have !